Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11438
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11049
 88-2-85-2-166
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. Did the Burlington Northern Railway Co. violate Rules 38h, 26g-2, and 22d, all of which are part of the current controlling Agreement between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the .Burlington Northern Railway Co. dated April 3, 1983, when it recalled furloughed Electrician R. L. Freitag to fill a new position of -40 ton crane operator?

 2. Did the Burlington Northern Railroad Co. violate Rule 38h, 26g-2, and 22d when it arbitrarily placed seventeen (17) electricians on the minus 30 ton crane operators seniority roster on January 20, 1984?

 3. Did the Burlington Northern further violate the current controlling Agreement dated April 3, 1983, and in particular Rules 38h, 26g-2, 22d, and 76 section - Electric Shop Cranes, when it failed to recall senior furloughed Crane Operator T. P. Levins to fill a new position of -40 ton crane operator at the Burlington Northern Railroad Co. owned, Burlington, Ia. facility?

 4. If it did then the Burlington Northern Railroad Co. should be ordered to restore furloughed Crane Operator T. P. Levins to his rightful position and also that Crane Operator Levins be made whole as to all lost wages, benefits and other rights due him under the current controlling Agreement. Claim to start on date that the Burlington Northern Railway Co. recalled Electrician R. L. Freitag and to continue until Electrician Freitag is removed not only from the -40 ton crane operator position but also from the -40 ton crane operators' roster. Also, that the Carrier removed these 17 journeymen electricians from the minus 40 ton crane operators seniority roster as set forth in the controlling Agreement.

 FINDINGS:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 Form 1 Award No. 11438
 Page 2 Docket No. 11049
 88-2-85-2-166
 Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
 In January 1984, by Agreement of the Organization's General Chairman
 and Carrier's Manager of Labor Relations, a corrected crane operators' senior
 ity roster for the Ottumwa seniority district was issued. The corrected ros
 ter included names of crane operators who had been erroneously removed from
 the roster when they became electricians. On January 20, 1984, Carrier re
 called R. L. Freitag, who held seniority on both the crane operators' and
 electricians' rosters, to operate a less than 40 ton crane. The Organization
 thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, assertng that Freitag should
 not be on the crane operators' roster, that Claimant should have been recalled
 to operate the minus 40 ton crane, and that the electricians who previously
 worked as crane operators should not have been restored to the crane opera
 tors' roster.

 This Board has reviewed the evidence in this case, and we find that the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof. Hence, the claim must be denied.

 This Board has already dealt with this issue in Award 10842, and we will follow that ruling in this case.




                              By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy ,J D r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of March 1988.

 lao